While Dawson was presiding at the 2005 trial of nationally known tax protester Irwin Schiff -- who was convicted and is serving time -- the judge received protection from the U.S. Marshals Service after getting trial-related threats, said the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. That history suggests a potential bias, so Dawson should step aside, according to the new motion.

"The central issue is whether these (Kahre-related) comments rise to the level of threat," said Margaret McLetchie, a staff attorney for the ACLU. "When he's received alleged threats from similar sorts of people in a case on similar sorts of issues, it might be hard" for him to satisfy onlookers that he is impartial.

On Monday, the ACLU amended its existing motion -- assigned to Dawson for hearing -- by adding a fourth anonymous client. All contend they posted anonymously on the newspaper's Web site and feel threatened by the subpoenas received by the newspaper.

The revised ACLU motion clarifies that it seeks to quash also the second federal grand jury subpoena issued to the newspaper, which demanded identifying information on only two writers.

One of them called jury members "dummies" and said they should be "hung" if they convict Kahre. The other wanted to bet that one of the prosecutors would not live to his next birthday.

The newspaper resisted an earlier, broad subpoena requesting identifying data on all readers who had posted comments below its May 26 article about the start of the Kahre trial.

More than 220 readers had posted below the article as of Monday, many of them using pseudonyms to protect their privacy. The majority of online comments side with Kahre, against the federal government and the IRS.

Kahre and three others are accused of evading federal taxes and conspiring to obstruct the Internal Revenue Service by devising a payroll system that paid workers in gold and silver coins according to the coins' investment value, but suggested using the coins' much lower face value for tax purposes.

The original ACLU motion to quash referred only to the first, broader subpoena. The newspaper has agreed to comply with the second subpoena.

McLetchie applauded the Review-Journal's willingness to fight the original, sweeping subpoena.

But, she added, because other future parties may not be as willing to publicize their dilemma if they receive what they consider to be an unfair subpoena -- grand jury business is usually kept secret -- the ACLU is still seeking a judge to rule on "whether the U.S. attorney's office crossed a line when it comes to the First Amendment," which guarantees freedom of expression.

The Monday filing asserts a second cause for Dawson to step aside: the fact that several years ago he recused himself from the criminal trial of Kahre and his co-defendants, now before U.S. District Judge David Ezra. An appearance of bias could arise if Dawson hears the present motion which indirectly involves Kahre, the filing contends.

Contact reporter Joan Whitely at jwhitely@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0268.